from the any-means-necessary dept

We already find the concept of "secondary liability" when it comes to copyright troubling enough. It's worrisome when a third party who had no direct involvement in the actual infringement can be blamed for it. Yet, in the legacy entertainment industry's insane infatuation with stopping all infringement, they keep going further up the chain, past secondary liability into tertiary or possibly even quaternary liability -- blaming those further and further removed from the actual infringement. That includes going after companies like ad providers and search engines -- but also, apparently, it includes going after registrars. We've seen some of this recently in various attempts to target registrars, but a ruling in Germany is hugely troubling, finding a registrar guilty because a site registered through that registrar was apparently used by someone to infringe.

Let's be clear just how far this is removed from the actual infringement. The infringement, if it actually existed, was between two or more individuals, who shared a torrent of Robin Thicke's album Blurred Lines. Once removed from that was the torrent site H33T, which did not actually engage in any infringement, but hosted the torrent (which, again, is not the actually infringing file). Another layer removed from that would be H33T's web host. And then we go one more layer up, and we finally get to Key-Systems, the registrar, which was ordered by a court to stop the infringement all those many layers down. And, of course, as the registrar, its only option was to yank the DNS entry, which it did, shutting down the entire site, even if everything else on the site was legal.

It's no secret that Germany seems to be much more open to ridiculous secondary liability claims, leading to some bizarre and dangerous rulings that will stifle innovation. And this seems to fit right in with those in the past. Key-Systems' lawyer agreed, telling TorrentFreak that the ruling "made no legal sense" and had "dire consequences for the kind of services German registrars can provide."

Universal Music, which brought the lawsuit, defended the outcome with some bizarre logic in a comment to TorrentFreak as well. First, a lawyer for Universal claimed that since H33T was a domain reseller, that tied the two companies together, but that makes no sense, especially since the issue of the torrent is totally unrelated to reselling domain names. Just because the companies have a relationship, doesn't make one liable for the others' totally unrelated actions. But then there's this absolutely insane logic:

Bruess says at this point it became “quite clear” that as “the only party involved who could stop the infringement”, Key-Systems needed to take action. That involved Key-Systems effectively disabling the whole domain, but Bruess says that was not his company’s request. They had only one requirement – to disable access to a single URL.

“In essence, Rasch Legal had not asked Key-Systems to close down h33t.com, but to stop one single torrent from being communicated to the public through h33t and h33t’s tracker,” he explains.

But, let's take that ridiculous logic one step further. Say, for example, that the registrar was unable to stop this particular torrent from being shared? Do we move one step up the ladder? They could, say, go to VeriSign, and demand they take down the entire .com database, right? Because that would be "the only party who could stop the infringement" at that point, right? And, even though they just wanted that single torrent taken down, if the only way VeriSign can do it is to nuke most of the internet, well, that's perfectly reasonable, right?

from the blame-matthew-inman? dept

Much like the North, Game of Thrones cannot be held—it's too big and too wild. Matthew Inman warned HBO that they should make their content more accessible or risk driving people to piracy, but that isn't really HBO's style. Now jilocasin points us to the news that Game of Thrones is well on track to be the most torrented show of 2012, and nobody can deny that HBO's foolish subscriber-only distribution is a primary reason for that. Approximately 25-million times have people decided to pay the iron price for the show, and as the comments on Reddit attest, it's often because the gold price wasn't even an option. Others pay for the show but still pirate for the sake of occasional convenience:

Sometimes I just want to fire up an episode and watch it on my laptop immediately and with mobility as I'm wandering around the house, and not worry about streaming/quality issues or finding a disk, setting up the DVD player etc. I am truly lazy.

Meanwhile, Game of Thrones continues to have great ratings. And the torrent piracy count doesn't include streams, which are also hugely popular, so it only represents a fraction of the pirate world. Why not create new ways to legitimize some of those viewers, especially considering so many of them have said they want to be legitimized? I still contend that HBO-style shows owe a lot to piracy for their cultural dominance, because, if they were actually as exclusive as HBO wants to pretend they are, they would have had a much harder time gathering fans. But HBO co-president Eric Kessler thinks cord-cutting is a fad, so like most characters in the show, he's fighting silly battles while ignoring what's really going on.

from the legal-uses,-anyone? dept

We've noticed before how many copyright maximalists make claims that suggest they believe that all BitTorrent is used for is infringement, even though it is used as an efficient distribution mechanism for all sorts of legitimate offerings. However, a court in France has apparently decided to punish the admin of a forum/search engine for torrent files, in part, by claiming that having the word "torrent" in your URL means that you're encouraging infringement:

The papers include a statement from the Court which declares that “..the names of these sites [when they include the word 'torrent'] encourage illegal activity. Torrent sites are accessed by users of the BitTorrent protocol which has a main, if not unique purpose, of enabling downloading of copyright protected works.”

In a nutshell, having the word “torrent” in a domain name can be reason enough to presume bad intentions.

That's pretty ridiculous, as there are sites that use the word "torrent" that have nothing to do with infringement. Seems like yet another case of people who don't understand technology making decisions that seriously impact everyone.

from the bad-idea dept

One of the key arguments that critics have often made against Google is that the company "meddles" in search results, effectively "picking winners and losers." Google's -- quite reasonable -- response for years has been that it's all in the algorithm, rather than any personal choices. And, the algorithm was just trying to recommend the best result, no matter what that might be. Indeed, this is a perfect and sensible response. However, after lots of pressure from the entertainment industry (and politicians closely associated with the entertainment industry), last month Google announced plans to start censoring "autocomplete" results, such that "terms that are closely associated with piracy" don't appear.

As we noted when the announcement was made, this is really difficult to do in any reasonable manner. What's "closely associated with piracy," one day becomes a legitimate format the next. Take MP3s for example. Five or six years ago, if Google had made this decision, you would imagine that Google might have decided to block "mp3" from autocomplete -- and yet, now, MP3 is the standard that is used around the world in all sorts of legitimate online music stores, including iTunes and Amazon. We pointed out that blocking things like "bittorrent" or just "torrent" would be a mistake of the same nature -- as it's just a standard that has plenty of legitimate uses, even if it's frequently used for unauthorized copying today.

Unfortunately, whoever was in charge of handling this at Google went for a simplistic sledge hammer approach, with the company now dropping a variety of terms, many of which have perfectly legitimate uses. Many of the choices seem totally arbitrary. As expected, BitTorrent and torrent are now blocked -- despite plenty of legal uses, and the fact that BitTorrent itself is a perfectly legal company with tons of companies using its technology for completely noninfringing purposes. In the TorrentFreak link above, there are reactions from a variety of companies, including BitTorrent Inc., RapidShare and Vodo, who all note that this move appears to hurt their legitimate businesses.

And that's where I wonder if this move will backfire in a big way on Google. While the concept of "search neutrality" may be one of the more ridiculous ideas to come out of Google-haters for years, the fact that the company is now clearly hand-picking "winners and losers" when it comes to searches on these kinds of technologies and services seems like something that will be used as evidence against Google at some point.

Google had a strong defense in the past to complaints of bias, in that it was focused on not meddling with its results. However, while this move doesn't directly mess with the actual results, by mucking with autocomplete, it is likely to have an impact on the kinds of searches that people do, driving them away from many perfectly legitimate solutions, for no reason other than that the company caved to pressure based on no legal rationale. All this really does is now open the door for others to demand that Google adjust its search recommendations and results in their favor as well. I'm really surprised Google would agree to do this in the first place, let alone do it in such a... simplistic and overly broad fashion.